For many people in the USA, when they ask you, “Do you believe in God?”, saying “No” means that you’re an atheist, and saying “yes” means that you are a “Christian”, or so is the assumption. However, according to many polls, nearly 30% of people living within the United States claim to have no affiliation with a particular religion.

Can you really believe in a God without belonging to a single religion? In the age of science, is there any modern experiments that hint towards a possible creator or God? Currently, the idea of Atheism is spreading like wild-fire. Many European countries poll at 50% rates or higher of national atheism. With science becoming more prominent and social values becoming more liberal, people are leaving religious institutions in waves.

I grew up as a Christian, yet was adopted by a Cambodian community who introduced me to Buddhism. Later at my first professional job working with Dell Computers, the bulk of my co-workers were Islamic former refugees. Throughout my life experiences, I have gotten the chance to explore many cultures and religions. From these experiences, I have decided to write a book titled, “A Truce between God and Atheism.” This book explored modern and ancient discoveries that may hint towards a shapeless God that cannot be bound by religion. Yet, at the end of the day, we must all respect the possibilities of there being no God, many gods, or a single God.

This publication tips many sacred cows. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, no one is safe from criticism! After reading this book, regardless of your beliefs towards God, you are sure to question yourself and become a more open minded person!

Did you know that 75% of the homeless population is made of us men? Most of whom have been through a divorce?

Did you know that men make up 93% of the prison population?

Did you know that men are usually granted harsher sentences than woman for the same crimes committed?

Did you know that men only win full custody of their children less than 10% of the time in divorce hearings?

Did you know that men pay over 90% of all child support orders whereas they face felony charges for getting behind?

Did you know that a man can be locked away for years for a false-allegation of rape even after he is proven innocent? (see the Brian Banks Case)

Did you know that the Federal Government gives the state governments $1 for every $1 they collect in child support via Title IVD of the Social Security Act (Conflict of Interest!)

Did you know that under Israel’s “Tender Years Law”, men are not entitled access to their children for the first 7 years of their life?

Do you know how to reduce your alimony or child support payments so that you don’t fall into a cycle of prison and job loss? — Hint, they will never tell you how in court! They hope you fail!

If you have a girlfriend, are thinking about getting married, are going through a divorce, have been through a divorce, or maybe you are a young man who is entering the world on his own for the first time…… YOU NEED THIS BOOK!

Or perhaps you are a woman who simply wants to understand the opposite gender. (If so, then kudos to you!). While we should recognize the unique struggles of women, this book highlights the unique challenges that men face, something that is rarely spoken about in the media since they expect men to remain silent and stoic.

This book is actually not a book but a report that was submitted to the United Nations regarding corruption against men regarding family law and criminal law. The UN rejected my report, thus I have decided to publish certain portions of it. The report was originally 54 pages long which contained personal information. This published rendition contains portions of the report to which I think the public could greatly benefit from.

The report can also be read for free on my “reports” page found on this website if you don’t have any money to spare. However, proceeds from the book purchases will go towards fighting for your rights!

It costs less than $10. The information in this book could literally save your life. If you have a brother, father, or male friend, this book is a must. And for those woman out there who are sympathetic to male issues, we salute you in your efforts!

DEFAULT 50/50 CUSTODY WITH $0 CHILD SUPPORT: If it is later discovered that there will be a disparity in custody and financial support is needed, cap the amount at no more than 20% of his NET income and/or a cap of $1,000 per month per child. Custody should be discussed BEFORE finances. Why is there a child support enforcement agency but no visitation enforcement agency? Women should not automatically be assumed to be the primary care-giver! Remove the money incentives!

BRING ACCOUNTABILITY: If Child support is to be paid. the money should go on a card whereas purchases can be tracked and challenged. Rent, Food, light bills, school supplies, ect. However, using that money for vacations or personal gain shall be barred!

DECRIMINALIZE FAILURE TO PAY- (How is incarceration or suspending driver’s licenses going to help a man earn more money?)

GIVE MEN PARENTAL CHOICE: – If women can abort why can’t men choose whether or not they want to be fathers? Follow Sweden, create a financial abortion clause. Men have 9 weeks to decide whether or not they want to take responsibility just as women have the right choice with abortion.

STOP THE FALSE ALLEGATION: False allegations of rape, abuse, or battery should be criminalized to the same extent as if the accused were guilty. Stop allowing women to get off free with black mail! (See the Brian Banks NFL rape case)

END THE CORRUPT TITLE IVD FUNDING: States are profiting from making men have higher than normal child support orders. For every $1 they collect, the federal government matches the amount!

CAP CHILD SUPPORT: Men and women should not be able to profit from child support. $1,000 per month per child should be the cap, regardless of how much money the non-custodial parent makes. A child certainly would not need more than that to survive and thrive.

ALLOW FOR CASES TO BE ENDED: Even with arrears being owed, a custodial parent shall have the right to dissolve the case completely at any time. This will foster better cooperation between parents.

EQUAL REPRESENTATION: Both parties shall be represented with council. Since child support comes with so many criminal sanctions and financial burdens, the state has a vested interest to provide counsel for both custodial and non-custodial parents. Currently, only custodial parents receive free counsel.

JOB PROGRAMS: Studies show that men who make atleast $42,000 per year almost never miss child support payments. Create job programs to help payers reach the national medium income.

END THE BRADLEY AMENDMENT OF 1986: This disregards a person’s ability to pay and forces them into prison. Being deployed in war? Get into a car wreck and become disabled? Doesn’t matter! The Bradley Amendment says you must pay or go to prison!

END FELONY CHARGES UNDER THE “Parental Responsibility Act” – This law says that a man/woman who falls behind more than $2,500 dollars can face felony charges. This can ruin a person’s job prospects indefinitely. Considering that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, falling behind is easier than ever.

Effects: Men are more likely to commit suicide after divorce due to financial uncertainty and emotional baggage from being alienated from his children. Children who grow up with strong figures are 7 times more likely to commit violent crimes in the future.

USE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AS A JUDGEMENT MODEL : In same-sex divorce cases, custody must be given based on merit, not on gender. While 50/50 custody should be the default, full custody should only be given based on merits alone.

GLOBAL EPIDEMIC: Germany, Japan, Israel, Canada— These atrocious laws are effecting people (mostly men) all over the globe. In our pursuits for stronger rights for women, we have totally discarded the feelings and contributions of men and their important role in our family society.

The right to say what you want, without fear of government or societal persecution is so great of importance that our founders listed it as our very first amendment. For when ideas, whether good or evil, are suppressed, society cannot engage in a progressive evolution. When people fear to utter a word, whether it be written or spoken, the world begins to become a quiet, cold, and gray place to live in. The feeling of having your thoughts trapped inside of your head with no legal way to escape is akin to a sort of mental prison.

Many Americans falsely believe that “free speech” protects us in a way that allows us to say anything we want, so long it doesn’t involve a threat of violence. While I wish this was the case, it is not. Under the Smith Act of 1940, it is illegal for any American citizen to express sympathetic communist viewpoints. Under the National Defense Authorization Act, passed under the Obama administration, anyone who is merely “suspected” of having terrorist sympathies, can be detained without a trial. These are very vague parameters which can easily be applied to silence social dissent.

Those who serve in the military have it even worse. If you are a private citizen, and you make a Facebook post about the president being “incompetent” or “unqualified”, the FBI isn’t likely to show up at your door. However, if you are serving in the military, such a simple statement can likely have you standing before a judge in a court martial hearing. In a court martial setting under military jurisdictions, there are typically no requirements for a jury, making the case that much more difficult to fight.

You would think that those who are literally putting their lives on the line to defend our nation and carrying out the orders of congress, would have more right than anyone to criticize the commander in chief and/or the orders given to him/her. But, the reality is, soldiers are expected to follow orders, show support for the commander in chief, and to keep their mouth shut if they disagree.

Article 88 of the U.C.M.J, 10 U.S.C. 888, makes it a crime for a commissioned military officer to use contemptuous words against the President and Congress, among others. The Department of Defense has also expanded this rule to include all military enlisted personnel (DOD Directive 1344.10).

These rules have a practical rationale for the fact that a soldier’s ability to criticize a mission could destroy his unit’s morale. While this is a noteworthy rationale, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the opinions of our men and women in uniform should matter a lot more than they currently do. If we are going to limit their ability to publicly criticize a mission or leader, should we not at least require that our congress, president, and commanding officers consult with our enlisted members in regards to input on whether or not missions should be pursued? Perhaps we should hold a yearly caucus where servicemen and women can express their opinions regarding missions and operations.

Many jurisdictions have implemented an on base “public forum” that is only visible to other military personnel whereas enlisted members have the chance to fully express their thoughts without fear of punishment. This is a step in the right direction. However, when you consider that the United States has not had a properly declared war by congress since WWII, we soon realize that there is a major problem with how our soldiers are treated as mere pawns on a chess board when we should consider them as individual human lives, only sending them to war if absolutely necessary.

Our law makers need a huge reality check in terms of civilian vs military life. Unmarried soldiers are expected to live celibate lives in the barracks whereas they have no freedom of speech; Talk about having pent up rage! Perhaps its all apart of the plan to make them better fighters. Who knows!? Regardless, I will exercise my free speech by saying, its about time we start humanizing our soldiers instead of viewing them as mere pieces of flesh covered expendable “equipment”.

Because of the increase of school shootings across the United States, there is an ongoing debate regarding solutions. One of the most looked at causes behind mass shootings are the mental state of the shooters themselves. Most mass shooters have some things in common with eachother.

Grew up in fatherless home

Was on prescription psychotropic drugs

Had stressful events going on in their lives

For category #1, the solutions are obvious. We need to revamp the family law courts in way that there aren’t “winning” parents and “losing” parents. I speak about this topic in-depth in my published report sent to the U.N. titled, “Global Human Trafficking in The Family Law Courts”, which can be found on Amazon.

However, for the sake of this article, I want to focus on the mental health aspect. It is undeniable that our school systems and our healthcare systems are handing out psychotropic drugs like candy! Kids who aren’t paying attention in class are quickly prescribed Ritalin . Depressed teenagers are quickly give Prozac ; the situation for adults isn’t much better.

We look at modern rappers like, “Lil Xan”, “Future”, and the recently deceased 20 year old, “Lil Peep” who died from a Xanax pill laced with Fentanyl . The rapper was seen on Instagram frequently swallowing hand fulls of Xanax pills daily. His young fans who idolized him are most likely following suit.

According to the “business-insider” news site, the United States of America is the world’s leader in prescribing anti-depressant medication. According to one of its articles published, it was found that 12% of all Americans are on some type of drug used to treat mental illness.

There are pros and cons to these numbers. Take South Korea for example, a very developed nation, yet it is ranked #3 for suicides. In the Korean culture, seeing a doctor for depression is a social stigma that shows weakness, especially on part of a male. It isn’t surprising considering that 80% of all suicides in the world are attributed to men. Because mental illness is pretty much ignored in South Korea, people are killing themselves left and right.

On the other hand, the United States, which is ranked between #30 – #40 (depending on the study), for suicides. So, there is some evidence that perhaps anti-depressant medications can work. Or is it merely cultural? Jamaica often ranks at the very bottom of the list for suicide rates despite being a poor country. Although the poor, the communities are very close knit, and their culture is very cheerful. Perhaps its because marijuana is legal to smoke in the country! Who knows!

But, I do know one thing; anti-depressants and other drugs used to treat mental illness carry many side-effects. “Suicidal Thoughts” , is often listed as one of the major side-effects of Prozac. Imagine that! A medication designed for suicidal people which may cause suicidal thoughts! There is no doubt that taking psychotropic drugs alters the brain chemistry, just like alcohol or any other intoxicant.

It is in my opinion that occupational therapy, talk therapy, and community interaction are among the best treatments for depression. However, yet again, there is a draw back to these types of therapies as well.

Anytime an American sees a counselor for depression, suicidal thoughts, or any mental health concern, they are then “logged” and “stereotyped”. Those who frequent a mental health counselor could have such activities used against them in a custody battle or those who seek to purchase a firearm.

Imagine you are battling depression, so you go see a counselor, only to have it used against you in the future. This is why many, myself included, fear the idea of seeing a mental health specialist during times of great stress. Once you visit these people, you are very “labeled” and will be “marked”. If you find yourself facing any future litigation, the courts can uncover your medical records whereas they will say,:

“Ahhh! You went to a mental health counselor several times for depression! You aren’t fit to own a gun or have custody of your kids!” .

In some cases, this may true, whereas in others, it could be an unfair stereotype. When people mentioned that they see a counselor or take anti-depressant medication, people will often sneer at you or perhaps take a step back. We associate mental health concerns with schizophrenia or severe manic depressive types. The fact is, we are all suffering with some form of mental illness.

If you are too happy, the doctors will say you are “manic”. If you are too grumpy, they will say you have “type A” personality. If you are too sad, they will say you are suffering from severe “Depression”. It is much like going to a mechanic. If you talk long enough, they will find something wrong with you!

The truth is simple. Visiting a mental health counselor could result in you losing rights to your child, to your firearms, and your reputation as a person. It is a sad truth. Under our current system, most people do not seek help for fear of being demonized.

The top ways we can prevent mass shootings is by encouraging a friendly community, surround yourself with loving people, do your best to be involved parents, seek natural therapies to mental health disorders over drugs if possible (Sports, work therapy, ect..). If you are hearing voices or are frequently attempting to complete your suicide, then you should certainly seek medical intention.

Requiring mental health screenings to purchase firearms sounds like a great idea until you realize that most don’t seek help so that they can purchase a firearm! Why not screen people’s health condition before they purchase alcohol, get a driver’s license, or board a plane? Mental health can make nearly any activity dangerous. Our country must stop looking for “quick” fixes and start looking at the true cause of our demise.

Our fast-food, sex-violence, entertainment, glorification of misunderstand anarchism. There is “freedom” and then there is “responsible” freedom. Make choices in life, however, make those choices in respect of how it will affect your society at large. Legislators cannot solve these issues. These issues are ones that will require families to step up, unite, and take back the reign of traditional values without going overboard.

A middle ground between progressive thought and traditional values must be balanced. We musn’t be afraid to advance our society, but we must also not totally disregard traditional ways of living which have served our humanity for so long.

Lastly, we must encourage more anonymity within our mental health departments. Must like the “confessionals” at a Catholic church. If people can be anonymously treated without so much of a paper-trail to stigmatize them, I am sure that many more people would step forward and ask for help.

As a boxing coach, this job often requires me to be a counselor, talking with my students, building up their confidence. If you are depressed and need help, but do not trust or fear doctors, a great alternative in my opinion is to stay active in group settings. Building relationships are essential in combating mental illness. In poor countries, suicide rates are often low because their communities are so tight knit. They may be poor, but no one is as lonely as the isolated modern man who types away in his cold artificially lit cubicle.

When it comes to veterans in our nation, there appears to be one of two attitudes held towards their presence.

“We love our Veterans! We support them no matter what! “

“Veterans are just tools of a war machine who deserve what they get!”

While many conservatives will never criticize the military or police no matter what, other political ideologies such as liberals, libertarians, or anarchists, will sometimes spit on the service of veterans by calling them, “tools of the government”, and other derogatory terms, — The truth is somewhere in the middle, as is in most cases of “This Vs That” issues.

Yes, there have been servicemen and police who have acted inappropriately in their service. The Mahmudiyah rape and killings involved the gang-rape and killing of 14-year-old Iraqi girl Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her family by United States Army soldiers on March 12, 2006. In other cases, many Vietnam veterans have admitted that they killed Vietcong soldiers and wore pieces of their body parts as trophies. And yes, it is true that many military conflicts are fought on bad intelligence or for malicious profit or gain.

However, there are also many accounts of soldiers who disobeyed orders that went against their conscious and/or later spoke out against things in their service they disagreed with. Soldiers are not mindless drones! They are usually very intelligent people.

A good example is Major General Smedley Butler, America’s most decorated marine in modern military history, who wrote the book, “War is A Racket”, which exposed the corrupt money-making schemes involved in overseas wars. Smedley, emphasized that soldiers should only be made to protect their country, not to police the world or fight on behalf of money hungry politicians. Very brave and intellectual statements indeed!

Many liberal leaning people, often criticize our servicemen as being mindless robots for the US military, but this couldn’t be farthest from the truth. Every person who wants to serve our country is required to take an oath to the US constitution, a legal instruments that formed the foundation of our modern legal system to which the average American cannot even recite. When our nation is threatened with an outside attack or an internal attack of gigantic proportions, the military is deployed to handle the crisis. These men and women spend their careers honing their combat, administrative, legal, and survival skills in order to protect those in their community.

While I agree that it is the duty of Americans to arm themselves and take part in the protection of their communities, our servicemen devote 100% of their time towards this effort, thus, they are experts in this field. Because we have a military, we can walk through the streets, fly through the air on our airplanes, and travel the world, knowing that there is a military force that is trained and ready to protect us from invaders.

People join the military for all kinds of reason. Sometimes those reasons are selfish other times they are purely out of duty and love for one’s country. Regardless of the reason, the soldier enlisted is employed to serve a primary duty of protecting his/her people. This rings true in all armies around the world. Without a military, in the event of an invasion, poorly trained citizens would have to band together with limited supplies to combat such a threat. While not totally impossible, the consequences would be disastrous, most likely leading towards the breakdown of their society.

When soldiers are sent off to fight and die in conflicts that appear to have little to do with our national security, please do not criticize the soldier. Criticize the policy maker who ordered their deployment! Criticize the commander in chief if you wish, criticize your state’s governor if you wish, criticize our lack of spirituality if you wish, but do not criticize the soldier. Most soldiers that I know who are stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan want to come home, many agree that the wars have gone on far enough, they don’t want to participate in such actions. Yet, when they are deployed and the bullets firing towards them from insurgents begin, they have no choice but to fight back, all because of a policy maker who decided that military action was necessary.

Servicemen can be seen as “tools of the government”, but only when “we the people” do not support them and speak out for them. In the 1960’s, many Americans were forced to deploy to Vietnam under Draft provisions. Anyone who refused to enter into the military under a draft order was sentenced to prison. These young men who were forced to kill, fight, and see their friends die, were spat on and ridiculed by the anti-war movement and were often called, “Baby killers”. These men were forced to fight in an unpopular war under threat of law, yet were ridiculed for attempting to survive such a desperate situation. These events were totally unfair towards our veterans. This is why Vietnam Veteran Era soldiers have some of the highest incidents of PTSD.

Contrarily, because of strong opposition from the American public with displays of nearly constant protests regarding the Vietnam war, politicians felt the pressure and eventually brought home our troops after being in the area for 20 years. Our troops now face a similar situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops have been there for 17 years . Despite early protests from the modern anti-war movement, in recent years, these wars have been mostly forgotten about by the public.

President Obama announced a supposed end to the Iraq war in 2011, yet to this date, there remains over 30,000 troops permanently stationed in the country whereas Afghanistan remains as active as ever in terms of conflict. These wars appear to have no end in sight. But who is at fault? Our servicemen or our law makers?

Our servicemen have only a few things in mind when it comes to their service.

I must protect my nation

Protect my family

survive

Politics are of little concern to soldiers. In fact, the “Uniform code of military justice”, a codified legal system governing enlisted soldier behavior, bars public criticism of the President and missions in order to protect moral during combat. Perhaps every year, congress should take a vote from our soldiers who have boots on the ground, or make true congressional declarations of war; such reforms would be highly beneficial in my opinion. Regardless, there is still no merit in criticizing individual soldiers or police to the degree we have been.

Let’s say you work for Nike, Reebok, Toyota, Burger King, HCA, or any major corporation. It is pretty safe to say that all of these corporations have probably committed some atrocious act at some point; Harming the environment, treating employees badly, using forced child labor, ect. Because you work for a corporation that sells products using unethical means, does that mean that you yourself are evil? Probably not. You are probably just happy to have a job in order to feed your family or perhaps you really love the product but secretly wish that the company operated more fairly.

I think our soldiers and our law enforcement officers feel the same way. They are doing a JOB! A job that often includes things that they disagree with but must carry it out anyways. Occasionally, an employee may speak out or rebel, but he/she does so at risk of losing their job or even their life in some cases. If we as a society want to reform a corporation, reform a military, or reform a government, being angry with the actions of the leaders of such an organization is a normal response. But to criticize those who carry out the functions of that organization are not always warranted and are often gray, murky, and situational.

If you truly support our Veterans or if you truly disapprove of the missions they are involved in, be a part of the solution instead of simply espousing hatred towards such an entity. Bring together your community, show solidarity, make it clearly known to policy makers how the public is feeling, boycott, get new laws passed or repealed and use diplomatic methods to reshape these institutions.

The best way to support our veterans, those who stand between us sleeping safely at night or being invaded by those who wish to do us harm, is to get involved in politics in order to prevent needless wars and to support those injured soldiers who return home from these wars. Our servicemen and law enforcers, while not always behaving perfectly, are essential to preserving a free society. When these men and women who are trusted with keeping our lands relatively safe act out under bad leadership, we should seek to reform the system, hold individuals accountable, work aggressively towards preventative measures of a repeat incident.

While I agree that it is not healthy to worship servicemen and policemen as flawless gods, it is also not healthy to put all servicemen and policemen into the category of “corrupt”. Our servicemen and policemen are also individuals with their own opinions regarding war, politics, and society. They are serving as a collective yet still deserve to be treated as individuals. Just as it is not fair to stereotype a race or religion, it is also not fair to stereotype those who are employed in a certain profession, whether it be the lowly cashier or the badge wielding police officer.

Honor and dishonor exists in all areas of employment. Some employees will take pride in their jobs, seeking to obtain a leadership position in order to improve conditions for everyone, whereas others will do just the bare minimum because they just want survive and get by. Unless you are living off the land living like the amish and making your own clothes by scratch, odds are, we are all somewhat guilty by association in terms of the things we buy, the places we work at, and/or the things we say to each-other.

No one is innocent.

However, when it comes to the military, less than 1% of Americans serve. It’s a job that is totally necessary yet less than 1% of our population is willing to do it. Some say our veterans do not deserve the benefits they get, while others say they deserve more. I say, if its a necessary job that less than 1% of our population is willing to do, then I’d vote that they get MORE benefits.

If you hate the wars, if you hate the policies, if you hate the way things are run, start your own or seek to reform them. It is that simple! Criticism is necessary for a dialogue to occur, yet, eventually some action has to come next to create a solution. Some problems are never completely cured as problems often evolve or devolve. Regardless, someone has to care enough to do something about it and i’d bet every last cent I have that most soldiers have no desire to unnecessarily harm others, and most police officers don’t want to unnecessarily ruin people’s lives. We must stop picking on the “foot soldies” and criticize those who are calling the shots, the law makers and the CEOs who make the final stamp on an order.

Just like in all systems or ideologies, it is the “bad apples” who give the harvest a bad name. As a person who is interested in running for office someday as a congressman or senator, instead of bashing the actions of policemen and servicemen, I am more interested in talking to them on ways we as lawmakers can improve our system, make it more fair, make their jobs easier, and less stressful.

If we as a society are comfortable with criticizing policemen and our soldiers because of bad leadership, we should be consistent and also protest the lowly cashier who works at a fast-food restaurant which serves unhealthy food to our public. As Jesus Christ once said,

The picture above was taken of me back in October of 2017, addressing the city council of Nashville in regards to gentrification and lack of jobs. Law makers hung onto my words very carefully as I approached the stand to make my testimony heard.

I have had many instances like this in my life. In fact, I have even managed to get a corrupt politician fired for fraud, county clerk John Arriola, who was extorting citizens out of their money. I stood outside of his office with a sign stating, “Arrest Arriola!”. The local news covered my story. Eventually I reached out to prosecutors who brought him to court and forced his resignation.

I’ve worked with “Home-street Home Ministries to feed the homeless in my community and sent letters to CSX, a local train yard where the homeless were sleeping, asking CSX to allow them to set up camp there so long as they do not cause harm.

(Working with members of Home Street Home Ministries)

I had the pleasure of speaking with Ben Wizner, in regards to Edward Snowden’s possible return to the United States. We discuss strategies to minimize the police state and to operate safely online without arousing unwanted attention.

(Ben Wizner and myself at a Convention on protecting Civil Liberties)

I submitted a 54 page report to the United Nations, detailing the need for international family law reform and recognition of discrimination against the Male-Gender in certain areas of our socio-economic systems. Part of the report was published in my manuscript available at Amazon.com, see ” Global Human Trafficking In The Family Law Courts.”

(Me giving a copy of my UN report to Tennessee law maker, Antonio Parkinson at a Town-hall meeting who eventually got a law passed reducing interest amounts on owed back child-support)

I’ve submitted several reports the International Drug Scheduling Convention, held annually, regarding the legalization of Marijuana and protection of CBD products. The report can found on this website under the “Reports sections”.

I could go on and on with things that I have been involved in regarding social and legal reforms. This article is not designed to “toot my own horn”. It is to display the difference between “slacktivism” and “activism”.

Slacktivists spend alot of time tweeting, making Facebook memes, and engaging in hours of online debates with their 50 or so followers. The “like”, “share”, and engage in online “flame-wars”, whereas at the end of the day, they can lay in their beds and say, “I fought for freedom today!”.

It truly is a “slacker” approach. Behind a computer screen, one’s bravery increases quite a bit. The solution to everything is, “It’s the government’s fault”, or “Religion made him do it”. Slacktivists are really great at complaining and raising awareness for an issue, but they don’t really “do” anything.

Don’t get me wrong, I think using technology as a way to raise awareness is great! Create your Facebook fan page, make youtube videos, continue to use media platforms to reach an audience, but you must also combine it with REAL physical actions. According to “slacktivists”, Martin Luther King Jr didn’t need to go to jail or protest to win equal rights for his people, if he had Facebook back then, he could have just made a “meme” about Jim Crow laws and the problem would have been solved! (insert sarcasm here).

I understand that many of us work a full-time job, some of us even work two jobs while trying to operate a “side-hussle”, but it’s no excuse, many events are held on nights or weekends, or you could occasionally take a day off., write a letter, invent something, do something! Continue to like, share, and post your opinions online to raise awareness, but, make conscious efforts to take physical actions towards your activism. Additionally, come up with practical solutions to the problems you care about. Simply saying, “Taxation is Theft”, or “End Climate Change now”, may raise a discussion, but it doesn’t present any real solutions to the problems you are raising.

A Libertarian might say, “Taxation is Theft”, but what plans does he have towards making taxation unnecessary? Is he going to invent a new technology that replaces police forces, is he going to start his own road building service? Is he going to run for office and pass a new law that lowers or eliminates taxes? —probably not, he will probably just continue to post memes about how “messed up” , the government is while offering no real “positive” solutions on how to actually fix it or replace it with something else.

Getting angry about a problem is a normal reaction. However, the next phase is to seek out viable solutions to that problem. You can scream out, “End Climate Change”, or “Taxation is Theft” until the cows come home, but it doesn’t really do anything. Even if you get people to agree with you, eventually, they are going to want a solution from you. Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, these people never shared, liked, or posted anything on Facebook, yet they changed the world permanently with their actions!

In conclusion, we must combine the new age with the traditional. Use your technology to expand your ideas in order to reach a larger audience, but be prepared to back up your ideas with progressive physical action and demonstrable solutions.

Like, share, and comment on this article—- Then get your butts out there and do something about the issues you care about!

Randell Stroud

Nalini-Global 2018

Randell Stroud is certified in Paralegal Generalism, Bankrtupcy law, and international law. He is a strong advocate for family law reform, tax reform, marijuana reform, legal administration reform, foreign policy reform, and anti-poverty measures.

(Activists celebrate the passing of a new law that exempts bail requirements on certain misdemeanor offenses.)

On Tuesday, February 6th, 2017, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, signed an ordinance Tuesday that eliminates the Municipal Court’s cash bond requirement for certain low-level offenders who otherwise would be forced to sit in jail due to being unable to afford a bond.

The Atlanta Mayor stated, “…It makes no fiscal sense to hold someone in jail over a $500 bond”.

According to the many reports, after six hours of public comment and debate Monday afternoon, the City Council approved the ordinance 13-0. The bail bond industry itself appeared to be the main opponent of this law during public comments. However, citizens largely supported this effort. Sure, the bail-bonds industry may lose a little money, alas, families will be safe from the racketeering system that our legal system has become!

Like in all matters of the law, we have to strike a balance between liberty and security; Protecting the logical rights of men and their properties, while not creating monopolies that only the wealthy and the governments themselves can understand or afford to participate in. That’s the problem with our current legal system. The legal system is a glorified socialized “gun” that we use to point at one another in a “civilized” courtroom. However, it doesn’t make society any fairer or safer when that shared use of force can only be afforded by certain groups of people. Namely, the extremely poor who can claim to be “indigent” , or the extremely rich who can afford the best lawyers or to pay off judges. It is the middle-class who has no remedy. They don’t qualify for low-income exceptions, and they cannot afford a legal team of their own. Where do they go?

The legal industry and the for profit prison system, nicknamed the “Prison Industrial Complex”by many, benefits the state departments, judges, prison investors, bail bondsmen, lawyers, and police officers looking to keep their quota numbers up. However, this sort of “for profit” legal system creates another hurdle for the poor looking to get a leg-up.

Public urination, driving on a suspended license, an unpaid traffic ticket, simple possession of marijuana, — these are not charges synonymous with dangerous criminals who may flee the country or state, they are merely “infractional” petty offenders. To hold these people on a bond, who probably can’t afford the bail money, will sit in jail over such infractions whereas they are likely to lose their jobs and further slip into the cycle of legal penalties which facilitates poverty and loss of family ties.

The system doesn’t seem to care. As long as they are pulling in revenue for the system, lawmakers appear oblivious to long-term impacts on low-income families looking to escape poverty. According to statisticbrain.com, the average police officer in the USA pulls in about $300,000 per year in revenue from citations. That’s about $6,232,000,000 per year nationally! That’s a lot of revenue for infractions that could largely be forgiven, warned, or overlooked. If I receive a seat-belt ticket, and am forced to pay the state $50, how does that solve any problems? If I cannot afford the ticket, my license will be suspended, taking away my ability to get to and from work, further forcing my family into the bellows of poverty. If I get caught driving on a suspended license, I go jail.

Holding a prisoner isn’t cheap either. It costs taxpayers about $31,000 per year to feed, clothe, and house an inmate. That’s about $85 per day, much more than the cost of your average citation. But, the prison investors, bail bondsmen, law makers, government workers and attorneys who make money mitigating these issues don’t care about tax-payers or at risk families. They care about profit margins and expanding department budgets!

Some may say, “Just follow the law and it won’t be a problem!”. We must ask ourselves, why does the United States have the largest prison population in the world? Over 70% of our inmates are non-violent! It’s a money scheme! It costs $500 to legally operate a lemonade stand in America! The average American commits three misdemeanors and a felony per day without even realizing it! Literally every inch of American life has a statute or code attached to it! If the legal system can’t get you for running a red-light, maybe they can get you for being a “public nuisance” or for the bumper on your car being one inch lower than what statute allows. The more laws we create, the more criminals we create by default! It is an inadvertent consequence stemming from good intentions; or perhaps it is all designed purposely to be this way? Or perhaps, the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Regardless, this reform effort that the city of Atlanta has made, thanks to so many passionate advocates and leaders like Atlanta based attorney Gerald A. Griggs, who championed this effort, is a welcomed change! It is so rare for attorneys and politicians to come together on behalf of the poor. When these instances happen, they deserve all of our applause and credit.! I salute Mayor Lance-Bottoms and all of those who fought for the repealment of such archaic bail practices.

Sure, if a man is wanted for malicious battery,murder, rape, robbery, or grand theft auto, it makes sense to put a bail requirement on him/her. Alas, those who are subject to a bail requirement for petty offenses are merely pieces of evidence proving what a corrupt system we have. This new change in the law is an excellent move and I pray that all cities follow suit! This may seem like a small victory, but in reality, it can potentially turn into a huge wave of momentum in terms of criminal law reform.

In 2011, Barack Obama signed into law, the “America Invents Act”. After his administration received outcries from the public stating that the patent system had become too “slow” and “bogged down”, the president himself addressed congress to gather a convention whereas a new law could be created in order to stream-line the process. “What used to take days to patent, now takes years!” is what many exclaimed. Which is true, however, the population was much lower 150 years ago and society was less complicated.

Before the America Invents Act of 2011 passed, our US Patent system operated under the “Who invented it first?” principle. Just because a corporation or wealthy aristocrat filed a patent on an invention, didn’t mean he/she would necessarily get the legal protections and exclusive rights to the invention. At any point, someone could challenge or argue the filing, showing evidence that they were the original innovator who created the product, therefore they would be granted the privilege of holding the patent right.

This principle has bogged down the system in recent years because of the many challenges made towards filings, but has always protected “indie” inventors, i.e.- poor inventors who couldn’t afford to immediately file things into the USPO. Filing a patent isn’t cheap for someone who may be working a normal 9 to 5 job. Our old system ensured that those who actually created an invention would receive credit for their work instead of giving leeway to those who could simply steal someone’s research and could afford to file it under their capacity, essentially profiting from someone’s original work.

Prior to 2011, the USA, was the only country in the world, to operate under the “Who invented it first?” principle instead of the “First to File” principle. With America’s newfound obsession to “Be like the rest of the world”, we have inadvertently shot ourselves in the foot. Since the passing of this law, low-income inventors feel completely shut out of the patent system. In order to protect themselves, they have to either rush the development of their invention in order to be “The first to File”, or they have to patent each stage of development. Both tactics can be costly in terms of legal fees and result in a product that is rushed.

Under the old system, people felt less rushed to get something patented, so long as they felt confident that they could prove they were the original creators. Now, under our new system, none of that matters. To make matters worse, the America Invents Act contains tons of “ear-mark” language that exempts banks from having to pay royalties towards inventions. Many small business owners and low/middle class citizens are calling the America Invents Act the “Anti-Inventor Big Business Earmark Act ”

Big corporations can afford to file as much paper work and legal documents needed in order to secure a patent. Under the old system, if someone’s invention was stolen and then filed in as their own creation, the filer could be sued very easily. In fact, many people are abusing the new system as a way to scam competitors. People may pose as an investor or journalist, looking for feedback from inventors, then take their ideas, patent them, and then sue the original creators for trying to market their own inventions!

(Nalini-Global owner, Randell Stroud, with David Kappos)

Even though I disagree with his support for the “America Invents Act”, earlier this month, I had the chance to spend the afternoon with a man who is largely responsible for the passing of this law, David Kappos. After his lecture, we got a chance to hang out, discuss cryptocurrencies and other issues affecting IP Law. David served as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from 2009 to 2013. I really enjoyed picking his brain! He was a really nice guy, with a ton of wisdom in regards to IP law, however, I still disagree with his stance on this particular law.

The good news is, even though small time inventors may feel as if they are left out of the patent game, they can still somewhat protect their works through copywrite and trademarks, which are far less expensive to enforce and create. While it may not keep large corporations from totally stealing your products, it can create a legal deterrent, as defending copywrite infringements aren’t cheap. However, be forewarned, the new norm is patent lawsuits is the award attorney fees to the defendant if he can prove that your suit is without merit or there are special circumstances as was the case in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

(***FYI- Patents refer to the inventions themselves, whereas copywrites refer to the expression of an idea through literature or artistic works,)

This brings me to my next point. As a Libertarian, I can’t help but to wonder if the patent system should exist at all. Yes, if someone totally steals your design, part for part, gear for gear, even using the same logo and name for their product, we could consider this a form of fraud. Similarly comparing to an event where someone was using your legal name without your permission.

However, from a free-market perspective, if someone where to create a similar product, under a different name and logo, that performed better and was less expensive, should patent law keep him out of business? My answer is “no”! The Free-market, when allowed to function properly, correctly picks winners and losers, and does not use tax-payer money to bail-out failing products. I feel that the idea of patents themselves have turned too much into a way to monopolize a product so that companies can preserve their piece of the economic pie. Good ideas cannot be locked away from society to use.

On the other hand, it would be totally unfair for an inventor, who has spent years researching and developing a product, become a victim to marketing theft. If I were to create a website brand that looked exactly like “Reebok”, and all of my products looked exactly like the original Reebok sports brand with identical designs, with an identical logo, and then I became a millionaire, is this not a form of theft? It is worth discussing.

Without copywrite, trademark, and patent laws existing to some degree, it would be difficult to become fans of any writer, musician, or developer, because no one would know which brilliant mind that these amazing works were coming from. Unchecked “copycats” would dilute innovation and encourage stagnation of development.

On the contrary, government rules around patents, trademarks, and copywrites that become too intrusive, overbearing, and burdensome, will eventually create a wall between small-time creators reaching recognition and success, especially when you consider that their competitors will most likely be huge corporations and wealthy aristocrats who can afford the rules of the unfair legal system.

Like in all matters of the law, we have to strike a balance between liberty and security. Protecting the logical rights of men and their properties, while not creating monopolies that only the wealthy and the governments themselves can understand or afford to participate in.

That’s the problem with our current legal system. The legal system is a glorified socialized “gun” that we use to point at one another in a “civilized” courtroom. However, it doesn’t make society any fair or safer when that shared use of force can only be afforded by certain groups of people. Namely, the extremely poor who can claim to be “indigent” , or the extremely rich who can afford the best lawyers or to pay off judges. It is the middle-class who has no remedy. They don’t qualify for low-income exceptions, and they cannot afford a legal team of their own. Where do they go?

Regardless of your political ideology, it is clear– The America Invents Act needs to be scraped. If the US Patent system is slow, bogged down, and underfunded, we can come up with a new reform that doesn’t exclude up and coming inventors who cannot afford to keep up with expensive and tumultuous “first to file” system, which hasn’t spurred any major innovations in other countries.

Airplanes, cars, Televisions, the iphone/smartphone, all of these were produced under the “First to Invent” principle. These amazing inventions have changed the shape of our entire sociology. If such great inventions came from our old way of doing things, why should we seek to reinvent the wheel? Wheels are round for a reason, they are designed to “roll”. This new law is like someone suggesting that wheels should be triangular instead.

What do you all think? Should the America Invents Act remain, should we go back to the old system, or should we scrap both methodologies all together and create a brand new way of looking at patents?

Randell Stroud

Nalini-Global

2018

Randell Stroud is an experienced paralegal specializing in constitutional, bankruptcy, human rights, and international law. He has authored several books including, “Global Human Trafficking in the Family Law Courts”.

The United States government is about $20 trillion dollars in debt currently. The number is consistently climbing. With the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, financial institutions are more volitale than ever.

For many college graduates, student loans can feel like a financial death sentence. Child support, Taxes, Alimony, and Student loans are generally unforgivable in bankruptcy cases. So, what is a graduate to do if they cannot find a great paying job with their degree?

The good news is that there are well known options like “deferment” of payments and income based payment plans. However, many fail to realize that there are numerous grants and applications that can be used to lower your payments even further or have part of your balance forgiven.

Those who work in public service are the best candidates to have part of their loans removed. Teachers, lawyers, public defenders, and those who make less than 10K a year have a plethora of options for relief. You can also challenge the accrediting merits of a school in order to have your loan forgiven.

Since taking office in June of 2016, President Duterte, has been a strong proponent of increasing sanctions against drug users and sellers, and by “sanctions”, I mean death. While many countries such as Denmark, treat drug issues primarily as a medical concern rather than a criminal one, the Filipino president appears to have reversed this European precedent.

The 45 years long war on drugs in the United States, is also a very controversial topic that mirrors many of the same criticisms. Whereas the United States boasts the largest prison population on the planet, primarily caused by harsh drug laws, the Philippines is going a step further by using death as a means of punishment instead of incarceration or rehabilitation programs. On the surface, it may seem to be a swift strategy of “no tolerance” against the destructive nature of drug manufacturing. However, just like in any “war”, innocent casualties will also become a factor. The government has said over 3,800 were killed in legitimate anti-illegal drug operations. Human rights groups peg the number of deaths at over 13,000, but the administration has dismissed this figure as overblown.

Duterte recently scaled back his drug war, tapping the smaller Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency as the lead government body to enforce the campaign and relegating the police force to a supporting role. This resulted in the Philippine National Police to terminate its controversial house-to-house anti-drug campaign “Oplan Tokhang” (knock and plead).

These “door step” trials can sometimes result in “trigger happy” officers firing on innocent people, house pets, or minor children, such as in the case of 17-year-old Kian Loyd delos Santos, who was dragged past a basketball court into a dead-end screaming, “Please can I go home. I have school tomorrow”. He was given a gun and told to run, whereas he was essentially killed by a firing squad. A perfectly staged killing set up by public servants against their own citizens.

Just as in all forms of law enforcement, there must be a balance between deterrence through punishment and a gentle hand of compassion in order to change the law, repeal the law, or rehabilitate the offender. A society ran on fear will never flourish just as in the days of Feudal Japan or the Monarchy of Britain that ruled over the American Colonists.

New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said world leaders should raise concern about Duterte’s war on drugs, which has seen thousands dead, mostly from the urban poor.

“Surely someone from among the 20 world leaders at these summits can confront Duterte about his horrific and unprecedented ‘drug war’ killings,” Brad Adams, HRW Asia Director, said in a statement.

The President’s son, Paolo Duterte, 42, appeared last month before a senate inquiry to deny accusations made by an opposition lawmaker that he was a member of a Chinese triad gang who helped smuggle in a huge shipment of crystal methamphetamine from China.

President Duterte pledged to protect police officers should they decide to murder his son if the allegations are indeed found to be true, in a speech made to the public. President Duterte claims that the law is not exempt for anyone under his Drug War parameters, including himself or family members.

Protesters soon rallied afterwards holding signs saying, “Stop the killings!”, “No rule by Martial Law”. Many of the protesters grew up in the era of the Marcos family who ruled over the Philippines for years using Martial Law tactics that involved extra-judicial killings and suppression of free-speech alongside the ban of private gun ownership.

Duterte responded to the protesters by saying, “I would be happy to slaughter the 3 million drug addicts in this country”, whereas he went on to describe any children killed in the drug war as “collateral damage”. Leaders in the Catholic church, the country’s dominant religion, have also spoken out against these harsh tactics used in this drug war.

Archbishop Socrates Villegas, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, denounced the drug killings at another mass on Thursday, saying Catholics must do more than lighting candles for the dead and helping orphans. “Stand up. To keep quiet in the face of evil is a sin,” he said.

President Duterte is still in the early stages of his presidency. It isn’t too late for him to turn things around and have a change of heart. Like many great leaders, good intentions often pave the way to hell. While few doubt that the president doesn’t means well in his effort to solve the drug use problem in the Philippines, few agree that instituting a civil war against your own people in order to solve that problem can be a viable remedy.

We pray that world leaders will discuss alternative methods of curbing drug use in the Philippines with Duterte during upcoming conferences. Perhaps, such conversations will also influence American leaders who have also refused to adopt a more European approach towards solving drug use problems with medical solutions rather than criminal solutions. Currently the United States is spending over $51 billion dollars a year on drug enforcement measurements. A figure that many argue could be funneled into more productive rehabilitation programs. We can only pray that Duterte and other leaders who use similar tactics will be paying attention to the words of protestors and human rights organizations in the coming months leading up to a new election cycle.